Supreme Court issues rulings on Jan. 6 rioters, overturns Chevron doctrine (2024)

FAQs

Did the Supreme Court overturn Chevron deference? ›

In a 6-3 decision, with Justice Roberts writing for the majority, the Court concluded that Chevron deference should never have been used to begin with, overturning the Chevron decision. The Court made the following major points: Courts must use independent judgment to determine the meaning of federal statutes.

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, overturned Chevron and handed authority back to Congress and the courts.

Chevron deference is the latitude federal judges give agencies over how to interpret the statutes they administer when a dispute arises. Some 40 years ago, the Supreme Court articulated a relatively simple two-part test.

Originally decided in 1984, Chevron became a watershed decision in which courts used its two-part test as the standard for interpreting when a statute is ambiguous or silent, deferring to the administrative agency's reasonable interpretation of the statutory language.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Without question, the Dred Scott Decision in 1857 was the worst ever by the Supreme Court. It denied citizenship to all African Americans, slave or free, and the strong reactions to the decision all but destroyed any hope for compromise between the North and South, leading to the Civil War.

The Ecuadorian court awarded the plaintiffs $9.5 billion ($12.7 billion in 2023 dollars) in damages, which led Chevron to withdraw its assets from Ecuador and launch legal action against Donziger in the US. In 2011, Chevron filed a RICO (anti-corruption) suit against Donziger in New York City.

The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine was when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question was not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency.

Some who say Chevron creates a risk of systematic bias argue that the decision gives agencies an unfair advantage when people challenge their decisions in court. Others who worry about bias following Chevron argue that agencies might try to expand their powers by working with individual members of Congress.

Understanding the Chevron Doctrine

This doctrine has played a crucial role in enabling agencies to enforce regulations on complex issues such as environmental protection, public health, and consumer safety.

What does the Chevron ruling mean for the ATF? ›

Your weekly briefing on gun violence.

Chevron held that the courts should defer to federal agencies to interpret ambiguous federal laws. Now it will be up to the courts, as opposed to experts and scientists who work for the government, to decide whether federal laws are in line with Congress's intent.

Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies.

The so-called Chevron doctrine — named after the case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — told courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute in circ*mstances in which the law in question is vaguely written.

The Supreme Court's Decision in Loper Bright

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron. The Court's merits analysis was straightforward. In the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress provided that a “reviewing court shall decide all questions of law.”

On May 17, 1954, a decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case declared the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. The landmark Brown v. Board decision gave LDF its most celebrated victory in a long, storied history of fighting for civil rights and marked a defining moment in US history.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for acts he committed within his constitutional powers as president. The ruling applies to anyone who holds the position of US president.

Other leading issuers of executive orders include Woodrow Wilson (1,803), Calvin Coolidge (1,203), Herbert Hoover (968), and Harry Truman (907). The record holder by far, though, is Franklin Roosevelt with 3,721—five of which the Supreme Court overturned in 1935.

On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.